>>> You can't make this retro-active to the current vote. You have
> to let the
> vote complete with the current criteria. I'm all for voting on an
> improved membership criteria. I've posted my suggestion already.
>
I disagree that the vote is a retro-active situation given it has not closed
yet, the criteria may be late. I am willing to move forward with the current
voting situation regardless even as I pose the following questions.
What is the general opinion of the group on suspending the vote? Does it
make sense to or is it just wrong to change the rules mid stream?
heg
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Harold E. Gottschalk Jr. wrote:
>> > Wow!
> > Lots of good suggestion here and all around. I started this thread
> > originally to address my own inability to make a decision on
> how to vote on
> > the candidates. My criteria was pretty lame, if someone was from an
> > existing organization already in the membership you lost my
> vote. Something
> > like that, well that is not good enough. Then I said to myself what is
> > required of me? That's how this got going.
> >
> > I like the suggestion of the deadlines and something to work towards.
> >
> > I would like to volunteer to compile the information for
> membership into a
> > document that we can review and vote on. I agree with Mike Lin
> that we can
> > only apply this moving forward.
> >
> > I would suggest not allowing the new members to join prior to
> any changes so
> > that they can review the requirements and we can evaluate accordingly.
> >
> > Here is the schedule I am proposing:
> >
> > March 26,2002 Complete Draft
> > April 2,2002 Final Document Release for Review by members
> > April 9,2002 Vote on Acceptance of Document
> > April 15,2002 Tally votes
> >
> > Please let me know if this is reasonable.
> > heg
> > Harold E. Gottschalk Jr.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Iain Shigeoka
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 10:03 AM
> > > To: members at jabber.org> > > Subject: [Foundation] Reset: Back to business
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > Looks like I luckily went offline while all the dust went flying. I
> > > laughed, I cried, I kissed my girl and said, "everything is gonna be
> > > alright". My BA in psychology yearns to study the group
> dynamics further.
> > > But I think most of us really just want to get things taken
> care of so we
> > > can get back to whatever brought us to Jabber in the first place.
> > >
> > > Despite all the discussion, we have made no headway on resolving the 2
> > > issues put forth: membership criteria/responsibilities, and
> the trademark
> > > issues. Peter suggested some criteria and it received very
> > > little feedback.
> > >
> > > I'd like to propose we take a first, procedural step to make something
> > > happen. I noticed during the IETF effort that deadlines really
> > > helped. So
> > > let's start by setting deadlines for things to happen.
> Someone (or anyone
> > > that wants to) create a strawman document for a solution to
> each problem.
> > > If the deadline comes without resolution, we'll just use the
> > > strawman as the
> > > final document (which can be revised in a later draft if it is
> > > unacceptable
> > > to enough people).
> > >
> > > We can take Peter's proposal for membership as the membership
> > > strawman, and
> > > one of us can throw something together for the trademark
> issue. I've got
> > > ideas on that one (but they probably won't be that popular)
> so I can throw
> > > together the trademark strawman unless someone else wants to. I
> > > also think
> > > we need to put these strawman docs onto a web space to create a better
> > > target for discussion and revision. I propose setting up a
> JabberStudio
> > > project or something similar.
> > >
> > > -iain
> > >
> > > #####################
> > > Warning, controversial proposals follow. They are intended to take an
> > > extreme position so that they may be criticized, corrected,
> discussed, and
> > > flamed. They are "strawmen" so take out your pitchforks and
> start poking!
> > > #####################
> > >
> > > JSF Membership strawman document (v. 02/03/12)
> > >
> > > I propose we dissolve JSF membership...dump the whole thing. It's a
> > > distraction, seems to be causing bad experiences, and hasn't
> done a damn
> > > thing for us. If members only responsibility is to vote, and
> we only vote
> > > on who gets to be a member, then this is _really_ lame.
> > >
> > > We retain the JSF council. Anyone in the members at jabber.org> mailing list
> > > may vote on new JSF council members during the yearly
> re-election period.
> > > We can put all the pressure on the JSF council to take care of
> > > standardization "approval" and review.
> > >
> > > JEP creation/standardization processes continue on standards-jig
> > > (it doesn't
> > > require membership now to create a JEP).
> > >
> > > Since the JSF council doesn't appear to have actually done
> > > anything in their
> > > capacity, we may need to better define the council's role.
> The council
> > > carries out their discussions on the members list, and anyone
> > > subscribed to
> > > the list may bitch and otherwise provide feedback to the
> council on how
> > > they're doing.
> > >
> > > I'd like to also prose the ability of the membership (those
> subscribed to
> > > the members list) to take a vote of no confidence in the
> council at any
> > > time. A 75% approval with a quorum of 50% of the current
> > > subscribers of the
> > > members list will force an immediate re-election of council members to
> > > complete the remaining term. That way, if the council is
> just sitting on
> > > their hands, we can kick them out, and get people who will do
> things in
> > > office.
> > >
> > > Deadline: Decide by April 15th, 2002
> > >
> > > #####################
> > >
> > > Trademark strawman document (v. 02/03/12)
> > >
> > > We must resolve the trademark issue in a reasonable amount of
> time so that
> > > both experimental and commercial Jabber projects may
> continue. Whoever
> > > should have been helping to expedite matters has not been
> able to within a
> > > reasonable amount of time (cite. A year?). This proposal is
> not to place
> > > blame but to create a tenable solution quickly and fairly. [Note:
> > > I'm trying
> > > to put a little levity into this, not be legal-ish]
> > >
> > > We, the Jabber community, hold these truths to be evident;
> that we cannot
> > > rely on Jabber Inc. to resolve the issues regarding the Jabber
> > > related marks
> > > in a reasonable amount of time and, that we must have a recognizable
> > > trademark to use for our own projects: private, personal, public or
> > > commercial.
> > >
> > > We therefore must create a new, unattached mark for Jabber
> > > related products
> > > and projects. This mark shall be (insert voted mark and logo)
> > > and shall be
> > > used to indicate a Jabber compliant application.
> > >
> > > Jabber compliant applications fall into 3 categories. First,
> > > they may be a
> > > client participating in client-server Jabber interactions.
> In which case,
> > > the jabber compliant client must interact with the jabberd
> > > reference server
> > > v. 1.0 or later without generating any errors.
> > >
> > > Second, they may be a server participating in client-server Jabber
> > > interactions. In which case, the Jabber compliant server must
> > > interact with
> > > at least 3 Jabber compliant clients (see definition above) without
> > > generating any errors.
> > >
> > > Third, they may be a server participating in server-server Jabber
> > > interactions. In which case, the Jabber compliant server must
> > > ineract with
> > > the jabberd reference server v. 1.0 or later without generating
> > > any errors.
> > >
> > > The level of compliance is determined by the number of Jabber
> protocols
> > > supported in this way. So if you properly support
> <stream:stream> you are
> > > level 1 compliant; if you support <stream:stream> and
> <message> you are
> > > level 2 compliant, etc.
> > >
> > > The availability of future Jabber compliance test suites will cause a
> > > re-evaluation of compliance testing (perhaps requiring a new mark).
> > >
> > > "Jabber" "JabberPowered" and the lightbulb logo may be
> considered for the
> > > Jabber community marks only if Jabber Inc. can arrange for
> its legal use
> > > under acceptable terms to the community by the deadline for
> this proposal.
> > > Otherwise, our new mark shall be used for this purpose and
> the Jabber Inc.
> > > trademarks can be reconsidered for this use at a future date
> (pending vote
> > > by members).
> > >
> > > Notice, this proposal is not intended to fragment the Jabber
> community or
> > > reduce the importance of Jabber Inc.'s contributions.
> However, we have
> > > waited over a (cite, year?) with no progress on this issue. The
> > > advancement
> > > of the Jabber community and its members cannot be held up by trademark
> > > related delays. We hope that something can be worked out
> with Jabber Inc.
> > > to continue to use the "Jabber" related marks either now or
> at some future
> > > time.
> > >
> > > Deadline: April 22, 20002
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Members mailing list
> > > Members at jabber.org> > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at jabber.org> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members> >
>> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Bauer me at michaelbauer.comhttp://www.michaelbauer.com>> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
>Members at jabber.org>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members